Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM041795 ~Ä~ fJ----::' C'~ ~¿,~ c../-iv V . . / ('4i ;:..;t C? ----... MINUTES WEEK OF APRIL 17, 1995 The meeting was called to order by Chainnan Glen Huntingford. Commis- sioners Robert Hinton and Richard W ojt were both present. COMMISSIONERS' BRIEFING SESSION IIa Mikkelson re: Request by the Employees of Jefferson County to Plant a Tree in the Courtyard in Memory of Lucinda Swan: The Board concurred that a tree be planted in memory of Lucinda Swan as suggested. Jack Westerman, Assessor re: Preliminary Report on Amendments to the Public Benefit Rating System: Assessor Jack Westennan reported that in reviewing the parcels in the open space program, there are 65 parcels with Open Space - Open Space designation which breakdown as follows: 4 have been graded under the new public benefit rating system; 11 are tideland parcels; 7 are the original Port Ludlow golf course, 5 are in Gardiner along the shoreline and located next to each other, 6 are in the Junction City plat located next to each other, and 9 parcels are in the Coyle area. Of the 65 parcels there are 16 separate grading efforts because like groups of parcels will be graded the same way. He went on to report that if the portions of these parcels that are adjacent to the shoreline and in the open space, open space program are given the maximum public benefit rating (this would provide a 90% reduction in taxes), it would result in a shift of approximately $12,000 in taxes which equates to (7/10 of a cent difference in levy rate) approximately an additional $.70 a year in taxes on a house valued at $100,000. He suggested that the County contract with a consulting finn to complete the work on grading the remaining parcels under the Public Benefit Rating system. Community Services Director David Goldsmith reported that the ordinance draft can probably be prepared within 60 days. VOL 21 r.\G~ 412 ~ Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 17 , 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Agreement, Extension: Medical Benefits Program for Teamsters Local #589 in the Jefferson Countv Sherifrs Office; Teamsters Welfare Trust: Commis- - sioner Hinton moved and Commissioner W ojt seconded the motion that the Chainnan be authorized to sign the agreement with the Teamsters Welfare Trust for the provision of medical benefits for Teamster Union members in the Sheriffs Office. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Applications (3) for Assistance from the Veterans Relief Fund: Commis- sioner Hinton moved and Commissioner W ojt seconded the motion to approve the three (3) applications for assistance from the Veterans Relief Fund as submitted by the VFW 4607 in the amounts of$306.76, $185.00, and $75.00. The motion carried by a unanimous vote. Agreement re: Space at County Fair; County Planning Department: Commissioner Hinton moved to approve the agreement for a booth at the County Fair which will be used by the Planning Department. Commissioner W ojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Commissioner Hinton moved to approve minutes of April 3, 1995 as submitted. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. GMA Update: Gary Rowe reported that the public hearings on the Aquifer Recharge sections of the Critical Areas Ordinance are scheduled for this week in Chima cum and Quilcene. He then reviewed the other meetings scheduled. The Prosecut- ing Attorney's office has asked for an extension on the compliance time frame for the Resource Lands Ordinance to July 17, 1995. Paul McIlrath, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, reported that a motion to dismiss the appeal of the IUGA ordinance by Burt Loomis has been filed, but a hearing date has not been set yet on that request. Chainnan Huntingford asked if the hearings on the amendments to the Critical Aquifer Recharge Area sections can be held since a mistake was made in the publication of the hearing notice for the critical aquifer recharge areas ordinance amendments? After discussion with Paul McIlrath and Suzanne Drum, it was decided that Paul McIlrath will review what was published and report to the Board about the status of the hearings. (See item on following page.) PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: The following items were discussed: a draft property rights resolution and what is happening with it; the process for the draft amendments to the aquifer recharge sections of the Critical Areas Ordinance; the petition submitted regarding the Big Quilcene River project; the Permit Center pre-application VOL 21 rAG~ 413 ..::::{:¡¡:::::::..:IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 17, 1995 . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . process for subdivision applications; and the subdivision application costs in Jefferson County being higher than other counties, the process taking longer, the impacts of the regulations on land available for housing and how that effects affordable housing. APPROVAL AND ADOPTION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner W ojt moved to delete item 12 and to approve and adopt the balance of the items on the consent agenda as presented. Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. 1. Final Subdivision Approval, #SUB94-0056; Divide 5 Acres into 4 Lots; Located off of Prospect and Boardwalk Avenues, Port Townsend; John and Carole Swallow 2. Application for Assistance rrom the Veteran's Relief Fund; VFW Post #3213 for $115.04 3. PROCLAMATION re: Sexual Assault Awareness Week; Week of April 17 through April 23, 1995 4. LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING re: GIS Technician Position, IDMS Department; UFCW Local 1001 5. Re-appoint Member to Serve Another Term on the Open Space Advisory Board; 4 Year Term, Expiring 03/31/99; Robert Bundy 6. HEARING NOTICE re: Interim Resource Lands Ordinance; Setting Hearing date for Monday, May 1, 1995 at 7:00 p.m., Chima cum High School Auditorium 7. Letter to Colonel Donald Wynn, Corps of Engineers re: Requesting Services for the Repair of Storm Damage to South Shore Quinault Road 8. Appoint New Member to Serve on the Gardiner Community Center Board of Directors; 3 Year Term, Expiring 04/17/98; Pastor John Morgan 9. Preliminary Long Subdivision Plat Approval, #SUB94-0039, Eagle Crest; To Subdivide a 25 Acre Parcel into 12 Lots; Located South of Highway 101 Near Gardiner; Cascade Investment Properties, Inc., Terry Fell 10. RESOLUTION NO.28-95 re: In the Matter of Establishing the Name For a Private Road, Grand Fir Street 11. CONTRACT re: Project #CRI069, Right of Way Survey for Acquisition; Larry Scott Memorial Park; 12. DELETE Request for the Use ofMemoIÌal Field for the Rhododendron Festival Carnival; Funtastic Shows, Inc. (See item on following page.) 13. AGREEMENT re: Shared Costs of Road Improvements; New Access Road to the H.J. Carrol Park; Church of the Latter Day Saints 14. CONTRACT re: Purchase of one (1) John Deere 31 OD Four Wheel Drive Backhoe Loader; Smith Tractor 15. CONTRACT re: Purchase of one (1) 1994 Allmand Maxi Sweep 6600 (350 hours); Clyde/West Inc. 16. Request for Payment of Second Quarter Allocation $6,250; Jefferson County Historical Society 17. Reappoint Members to Serve Another Term on the Jefferson County Board of Equalization; 3 Year Terms, Each Expiring 05/11/98; William S. Marlow, Richard A. Broders and James A. DeLeo VOL 21 r~G~ 414: ···..·s···..· ......... ...... ......... ...... ......... ...... .......... ....... ...................... ............ .......... ...... ..::::fII~~~tt:~:~{ttf Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 17, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BUSINESS FROM COUNTY DEPARTMENTS PLANNING AND PERMIT CENTER James Holland re: Planning Commission Report on Forest Resource Lands: Senior Planner James Holland reported that the Planning Commission has reviewed and submitted their report on the Forest Resource Lands Ordinance. He then reviewed the draft ordinance. Gary Phillips of the Planning Commission asked that the Board schedule a workshop on the draft ordinance. A workshop was scheduled for Monday April 24, 1995 at 3:30 p.m. in the Commissioners Chambers. Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Paul McIlrath re: Critical Areas Ordi- nance Amendments to the Aquifer Recharge Area Sections: After reviewing the published ordinance, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Paul McIlrath reported that he feels the Board can go forward with their hearing on the amendments to the aquifer recharge areas sections because the amendments were included in the published notice along with other items that are not going to be discussed. He suggested that the Board advise the audience at the hearing that not all of the published ordinance is open for public discussion, only those sections which address the aquifer recharge areas. Suzanne Drum explained that the sections that cover the aquifer recharge area (Section 7) that were changed were included in the publication, however there were parts of that section that should not have been included in the publication and they were included. Suzanne Drum will draft a statement for the Chainnan to read at the hearing explaining about the published ordinance. Request for Use of Memorial Field for the Rhododendron Festival Carnival; Funtastic Shows, Inc.: Facilities Manager Warren Steurer reviewed the letter from Funtastic Shows, Inc. regarding their request to use Memorial Field for the carnival during the Rhododendron Festival. They (Funtastic Shows) would like to evaluate the field prior to moving onto it, and are willing to provide funding to repair the field if there are any problems. He noted that the money isn't the issue, it's the condition of the field after it has been used by thousands of people and how fast repair work could be done. This field is in constant use for at We tic and other types of events. The potential for problems on the field is great. Memorial Field is a center piece of the community which has sections that were built over swamp and consequently get very soft very quickly. Chairman Huntingford reported that he was down on the field this morning and it is just beginning to recover in the middle from the football and soccer games. It was still pretty wet and moving a 60,000 to 80,000 pound truck off the field would cause a great deal of damage. Commissioner Hinton reported that he has worked with Funtastic Shows, Inc. over the past few years. They are reasonable and responsible people to deal with. They have been trying to get the carnival off the street for the past seven or eight years. One of the main issues is health and safety because the carnival ties up the second through street in the downtown area, and during some of the functions that street is critical to movement of emergency vehicles. The carnival is placed on grass fields in several areas of both Washington and Oregon. Commissioner Hinton reported that he contacted those places ,VOL 21 !'AG~ 415 ~ Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 17, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . and they advised that they had never had a problem. There has been discussion of building up the base of the field so that it is more solid and that is why Funtastic Shows offered the $1,000 for this year. Chainnan Huntingford and Commissioner W ojt both expressed concern about the potential for damage to the field. Warren Steurer reiterated that the Rhododendron Festival committee has an opinion and reasons for wanting to place the carnival in Memorial Field also. Commissioner Hinton reported that a large portion of the funding for the festival comes from the carnival. Moving the carnival off the street would allow the carnival to bring in larger rides and it would provide better access to the museum over the period of the festival. Commissioner Hinton moved to approve the request for the use of Memorial Field as presented by Funtastic Shows, Inc. Commissioner W ojt seconded the motion. The Chairman called for a vote on the motion. Commissioner Hinton voted for the motion. Commissioner W ojt and Chairman Huntingford voted against the motion. The motion was denied. Director of Commq:nity Services David Goldsmith re: Associate Planner Position: David Goldsmith reported that he is requesting that the Manager position not be filled at the Permit Center until further review of the Center operations is done, and that the Board allow the hiring of an additional Associate Planner for the Permit Center. Commissioner W ojt moved to approve the hiring of an additional Associate Planner for the Permit Center. Commissioner Hinton seconded the motion which carried by a unanimous vote. HEARING re: Appeal of Final Mitigated Determination of Non- significance; Thacker\Schlief Short Subdivision, SUB94-0068; Rita Thacker-Schlief: Chairman Huntingford read the hearing procedures and asked the following questions: Q) Is there anyone in the audience who objects to the participation of any of the County Commissioners in these proceedings? A) There was no objection from anyone in the audience. Q) Do any of the Commissioners have an interest in this property or issue? A) All three Board members answered no. Q) Do any of you stand to gain or lose any financial benefit as a result of the outcome of this hearing? A) All three Board members answered no. Q) Can you hear and consider this in a fair and objective manner? A) All three Board members answered yes. Q) Has any member of the Board engaged in communication outside this hearing with opponents or proponents on the issue to be heard? A) All three Board members answered no. Associate Planner Jerry Smith reported that this 13 ~ acre site is to be divided into 4 lots. Three lots will be two acres each with the fourth lot being approximately 7 acres in size. lVOL 2.1 ~AG£ 416 ..:::::::~:::~::!:::!:I:·¡·:IIIIII::.:II Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 17 , 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . There is an existing home on the parcel. The site is bordered on the east by Tarboo Creek and there is an existing wetland near the south end of the site. Some of the site has slopes that exceed 15%. A Mitigated Detennination of Non-Significance (MDNS) was issued on March 6, 1995 with 4 proposed mitigating conditions. The appeal letter nom the applicant states that they are appealing the first three of those measures. Mitigation 1 establishes a 50 foot buffer along Tarboo Creek; mitigation 2 enhances that buffer area and mitigation 3 requires that the buffer enhancement plan be prepared by a qualified biologist. There are recommendations nom the State Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe. Jerry Smith continued by noting that the fishery habitat of Tarboo Creek is identified by the State Department of Fisheries and Wildlife as a priority habitat. Commissioner Hinton asked when is an application vested as referred to in the letter dated December 23, 1994? Jerry Smith clarified by explaining that a project is vested when a substantially complete application is accepted by the County. He noted that on this project the application was detennined to be substantially complete on the original date of submittal. Commissioner Hinton asked if Tarboo Creek is a type 2 or 3 stream? Jerry Smith reported that the County's mapping shows Tarboo Creek as a type 2 stream below Center Road which is where this property is located. With reference to the Point No Point Treaty Council (peter Bahls) letter dated December 22, 1994, Commissioner Hinton asked if SEP A requires mitigation for existing conditions on the site? SEP A rules allow mitigation to rectify impacts of a project while repairing, rehabilitating or restoring, Jerry Smith answered. Commissioner Hinton then asked what significant impacts will be created by this project? Jerry Smith answered that the impacts identified in the record submitted are disturbance to fish habitat due to increased human disturbance. Commissioner Hinton noted that the lot adjacent to the creek is existing and the new lots are all at least 800 to 900 feet away nom the stream (to the west). Chainnan Huntingford asked if the property along the creek had been logged at one time and what has changed the existing conditions on the site? Jerry Smith reported that portions of the area along the stream were cleared at some time in the past and in some cases right to the stream edge. Chainnan Huntingford then asked if the pond connects to the creek? Jerry Smith answered that there is an öut fall nom the pond to the creek. Commissioner W ojt asked if the area around tlle pond and stream are used for pasture? Jerry Smith reported that part of the area between the pond and the stream has been used for a small garden area and fTuit trees. Jim Schlief~ 7981 Center Road, introduced his family and said that their letters state their position regarding this proposed mitigation. He said that he doesn't understand the use of the word "critical," with regard to the salmon. He doesn't understand how it is deter- mined when something goes nom not critical to critical without a significant change in the status of the species. It doesn't seem logical to require a buffer zone for this project because they say the salmon are considered critical, when the State considers them a "depressed" species. Salmon are not designated as a threatened or endangered species. He noted that he has reviewed the County's critical area map and doesn't feel there is such VOL 21 r~G~ 417 ^LJ .'::::::::;:::::::::::::::::::::::::;:;:::::::::: Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 17, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . an area on this property. He submitted and reviewed an aerial photograph of the property. (See Microfilm Record) Commissioner W ojt asked about Mr. Schliefs concern regarding the mitigation requiring a no-disturbance zone. Mr. ScWief explained that the mitigation says a "no disturbance" 50 foot buffer which he understands means that they would not be able to be in that buffer area. The enhancements in the mitigation was to plant native plants and brush (blackber- ries and salmon berries) which would basically eliminate their use and view of the property. They have no problems with enhancements as far as fish weirs, etc., in the creek, but they don't feel it would be right to eliminate their use of the property. The 50 foot buffer would eliminate their garden and many of the fruit trees he has planted. Commissioner Hinton asked if the ScWiefs garden area slopes away from the creek? Mr. ScWief answered that it does. Peter Bahls, Fisheries Biologist, Port Gamble S'Klallam Trib~ was sworn in. He reported that he talked with a Kitsap County SEP A official regarding this type of situation where there is an existing house on part of the property which is being subdivided, thus intensify- ing the use of the area. He stated that they advised that a buffer and restoration plan can be required under SEP A. There are cumulative impacts to surface erosion, storm water runoff and possible groundwater withdrawal when the land use is intensified. A Type 3 stream means that it is a fish bearing stream, type 2 means the stream is greater than a certain width and used by more than 20 water users as well as other criteria. This is a type 2 stream which is very important to salmon, a spawning and rearing area which is a public resource. Property owners have an obligation regarding what's on their property such as reserved mineral rights, etc. or water quality and fish habitat. Commissioner W ojt stated that he feels the applicant is saying that they are willing to work to enhance the stream for salmon, but they would also like their needs considered in the mitigation. Mr. ScWief added that they object to the "no disturbance" buffer area. Peter Bahls stated that it would be possible to write up a plan that would not include the "no disturbance" provision, but if the property is sold to another person in the future and they don't know anything about the stream, they may want to cut down more trees or put in rip rap along the stream. The zone of influence on the riparian zone is 150 to 200 feet. This area provides the stream with food, wood recruitment and all the things a stream needs. 50 feet is a pretty minimal zone, so it is easier to say that it is a "no disturbance" zone. Commissioner Hinton asked if Mr. Bahls is getting his information regarding pre-existing conditions from Kitsap County rather than from SEP A regulations? Peter Bahls answered that he discussed this with a Kitsap County SEP A official, who said that because this is an intensification of the land use on the property and because the County has policies for the protection of public resources (fish and wildlife), then stream protection can be required for an existing condition. If there is a house there when the property is subdivided, that really has no bearing on the subdivision of the property. A stream buffer and restoration plan can be required even if there wasn't one before. They feel that the existing impacts are signìficant and if this existing condition isn't dealt with now, there will be potential impacts in the future. Chairman Huntingford suggested that the old Conservation Service ~VOL 21 rAG~418 ,':':':':':': ..:::::::::::¡:::::¡!_llllllllllj ..................... ...................... ...................... ....................... ........................ ................................................ ......................... Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 17, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . maps be reviewed to see how long ago that land was cleared. Peter Bahls reported that he reviewed some aerial photographs at the University of Washington and it is apparent that there was forest on this property that was logged at least 20 to 30 years ago. If this type of buffer on a stream is reduced the stream loses smolt production. When a buffer is taken away, only about 15% of the smolt production will remain. In this case about half of the smolt production will be lost. Geoff Hlavin was sworn in and said that he has been working with the Thackers on this project for a few months. There is currently a single family residence on this property. He doesn't feel that the creek needs to be taken into consideration, because the three proposed new lots are away rrom the creek and have nothing to do with the creek, the pond, or the wetlands. If the subdivision does or doesn't go through the creek will remain as it is. The homes will not be built close to the creek and therefore have no impact on it. The applicants have allowed a natural setting along the creek. He then submitted a copy of a letter rrom Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Walt Perry to Kent Anderson, Pennit Center Manager, which states regarding open spaces in subdivisions "I must advise you that the form for landowners signatures would not be deemed binding upon land owners if scrutinized by a court. In every case where a dedication is exacted there must be specific findings tying the required dedication to the needs created by the proposed development. " There is no study showing that this creek is actually critical. This is a situation where if the County requires a buffer and there is not information to back up that decision, a law suit could result. Jerry Smith reported that the SEP A rules (WAC 197.11.30 - Threshold Determination Process) require that the County determine if the project is likely to have a probable significant adverse impact, but it doesn't make any reference to existing conditions. He also clarified with reference to Mr. Hlavin's statement, that open space is not an issue in this SEPA review process. Open space dedication is part of the plat approval process. Peter Bahls explained that there is critical habitat identified in the Critical Areas Ordinance which doesn't apply to this project because it was vested prior to the County's adoption of that ordinance. Under SEPA the County still has the authority to protect fish, wildlife and water quality resources. This stream has Coho salmon which the State lists as depressed. The State lists the salmon as healthy, depressed, or critical stocks. The other species in this creek are Cut Throat trout which are called a priority species by Department ofFish and Wildlife. Both of these species are important public resources which need protection under the SEP A regulations. The Chairman closed the public comment portion of the hearing. Chainnan Huntingford stated that his intention with the Critical Areas ordinance was to protect areas where the land use was changing, not place requirements on parcels where the land use along a stream is not being changed. The current existing conditions of this stream are not being changed by this proposal. He doesn't feel it is appropriate to require buffers on a stream where the current conditions aren't being changed. ~VOL 21 rAG~41g ··::::~j:::B::::::¡:I:I:lilili¡ ................ - ............ ......... ....... ...........'....... ............. ..:::/tjtttt~:~trJr Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 17, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Commissioner W ojt stated that the idea of the buffer is to keep activities out of it that will change the nature and function of the wetland and the stream. This was to give both the proponents and the County a chance to talk to one another about the possible long tenn effects of their activities on the stream. The only time the County will review the activities of future owners of this property will be whèn they apply for a building pennit or do another action that requires a penn it. The tribes are concerned about enhancement to make the stream more productive. The issue isn't the buffer as much as the applicant's ability to go down to the stream. The hard question is if the streams and their functions are important, how will the need to protect them be met - through requirements or education? Mr. Schlief stated that his wife and her family have been on this property for 20 years and there are fingerlings in the creek. Their family will not hurt the salmon in the creek because they want to see them there, but they would like to be able to mow the grass to the stream. Chainnan Huntingford asked Mr. Schlief if they would be interested in joining a com- pletely voluntary effort to build more habitat for the fish on the stream? Mr. Schlief answered that they might be willing to consider that in the future. Commissioner Hinton said that the lot already developed has not impacted this stream over the years since the property was logged. The new proposed three lots are between 400 to 590 feet west of Tarboo Creek. The Public Works Department requires that prior to any soil disturbing activities on the three new lots, they would have to have an approved erosion and sediment control plan. With this, Commissioner Hinton stated that he doesn't see where these new lots will have minimal, if any, impact on the pond or stream area. Commissioner Hinton then moved to reverse mitigation 1, 2 and 3 and add a mitigation measure requiring a 50 foot "no cut" zone for native vegetation (brush, trees, salmon berries, etc.) along the creek unless prior approval is received from the Development Review section of the Pennit Center. This "no cut" provision would be detailed on a notice to title. Amend mitigation measure 4 to say that the proponent shall pay the School District $437.10 per lot for three lots because one lot is existing. Commissioner Wojt seconded the motion for discussion. Commissioner Wojt asked Jerry Smith what a "no disturbance" buffer means? Jerry Smith explained that it would mean that once the buffer is established and replanted it could be used (i.e. walking down to the stream), no disturbance of existing or replanted vegetation would be allowed however. The discussion continued regarding the buffer area, and what activities would be allowed in a "no disturbance" or a "no cut" zone. Commissioner Hinton explained that a "no cut" zone would not preclude the cutting of brush or grass or pruning fruit trees, but would require approval of the Development Review Section of the Pennit Center in order to cut down or plant trees. Commissioner W ojt asked if the project proponent is willing to work with the Tribe on enhancement of the stream? Mr. Schlief stated that they are willing to voluntarily do enhancement to the stream. VOL 21 42() , ~r' '" r,w' '...1 .':::::::::::: ':"""""9':':':':""':':':" ......... ...... ......... ...... ..:::trrrt:..:;jmrŒ ,,::::::::::::::::::::::;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:::::::::: Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 17 , 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Chainnan called for a vote on the motion. Commissioner Hinton and Chainnan Huntingford voted for the motion. Commissioner W ojt abstained from voting. The motion carried. The meeting was recessed at the conclusion of the scheduled business and then reconvened on Tuesday evening at the Chima cum High School Auditorium for the following hearing. All three Board members were present. HEARING re: Proposed Amendments to the Critical Areas Ordinance Sections on Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas: Chairman Huntingford opened the public hearing on the amendments to the Critical Areas Ordinance sections (Sections 3, 7, 11 and 13) on critical aquifer recharge areas and explained that the Prosecuting Attorney has reviewed the public notice and determined that it was proper. Public Services Director Gary Rowe reported on the background for the drafting of these amendments and then Environmental Health Director Larry Fay reviewed the actual amendments and answered several questions about interpretation of them. AI Boucher said that finding 30 from the Critical Areas Ordinance says that the Board has determined that regulations must properly balance the composite of GMA goals, allowing for tradeoffs among economic, social and environmental values. With respect to the aquifer recharge component, Mr. Boucher stated that he presumes that such a determina- tion has yet to be made. Section 1.20 states that implementation is to be accomplished in a timely fashion with minimum intrusion on individual freedom, yet with fairness and equity between individual and collective interests. How is this policy applied with respect to aquifer recharge? Section 7.20 provides for its own statement of purpose. It calls for regulations which are consistent with GMA goals. This section also calls for consistency with Department of Ecology (DOE) WAC 173-200 and Department of Health (DOH) WAC 246-290. Mr. Boucher stated that it is vital that the aquifer recharge component not be WAC driven. By virtue of both legislative authority and executive responsibility, only the Board of Commissioners can make judgments deciding the issue of what constitutes proper balance among the 13 GMA goals. The Board's view must prevail over the parochial views of DOE and DOH. Subsection 7.403 grants waiver authority to the County administrator, but this authority is rendered frivolous because waivers are made subject to provisions of DOE WAC 173-200. It would be better to have the Board grant sufficient waiver authority to the Administrator to facilitate needed trade offs in pursuit of balance among the GMA goals. Subsection 7.405 makes reference to reasonable use variances under section 12.30. This variance is extremely limited and implementing authority is assigned to the Hearing Examiner. Mr. Boucher would like to see the County Administrator given the authority to make reasoned trade offs among the 13 GMA goals. Subsection 7.406 seems to say that the provisions of Section 7 take precedence over other sections of the Critical Area Ordinance. This language appears to neutralize the overall cVOL 21 rAG~ 421 ..::::~t::::œ.::f::::Ð.:IŒ::I¡i¡i¡ ........ .... ................. ,', .......... ,,::::;:::;:;:::::::;:::::::;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:::;: ......................... Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 17, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . policy thrust of subsection 120. Is it the Board's intention to tolerate this conflict of interest? Mr. Boucher concluded by noting that it is his view that the aquifer recharge component of the CAO is in need of significant editing. Guidance for the editing can only come from the Board of Commissioners who shoulder the burden of authority and responsibility for it. The immediate challenge is how to best to create an ordinance in which the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Arthur Price, 1945 35th Avenue West, Seattle, said that he owns property on Marrow- stone Island. His remarks are based on the ordinance as published in the newspaper. He then read and submitted his statement (See Microfilm Record) Les Smith, Port Hadlock, asked if some special attention shouldn't be paid to the area around the (City of Port Townsend's) Sparling wells since the Tri Area is going to be depending on those wells for its water supply? Chainnan Huntingford reported that the City is looking into that currently. Gary Rowe added that Class A water systems and wells have defmed well head protection areas around them by law. This ordinance identifies well head protection areas as aquifer recharge areas that would require implementation of Best Management Practices in that area. Don Cote stated that he feels the Board has to decide what levels will require monitoring. He feels the levels stated in the ordinance are to low. Enough documentation has been presented to the Board to indicate that the levels in the present ordinance for sea water intrusion and nitrates are too low. The ordinance uses 2 milligrams for nitrates when the State levels are 10, and the ordinance uses 25 milligrams for sea water intrusion and the State level is 100, and safe drinking water is 250. Why are we using a standard that is more restrictive than the State standard? How are we going to pay for the monitoring required in the ordinance? The levels set seem to be arbitrary and he feels the State levels should be used. Margaret Price read and submitted her comments (See Microfilm Record) Paul Heinzinger, Nordland, read and submitted his comments (See Microfilm Record) Cy Heffernan stated that he attended the workshops on this ordinance. Mr. Heinzinger and Mr. Brown submitted comments, but they were never brought to the attention of those in the workshops. He questioned why some of the data that these people submitted was not incorporated into the staff draft of the amendments. There is a lack of hard and fast data to implement this regulation. Roger Short said that his issue with GMA was covered today in the Senate through the passage of Initiative 164 regarding compensation for regulatory takings. Over regulation, such as on the nitrate levels, is setting new precedence for the County. This is a much ,VOL 21 rAc~422 ..::f¡:;:;:j:~:¡:¡:~ ..::::~l:::iiil.il¡¡i¡I¡¡ ...................... ...................... ....................... ....................... ........................ ................................................. Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 17, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . more stringent regulation. If something is taken by regulation, then there has to be some way to compensate those people. Marjorie Rogers stated that she has been involved in developing the densities in the Tri Area Community Plan. It has been a problem to try and satisfy the people who own large blocks of unplatted land or blocks of land that were platted some time ago and are vested under previous regulations (one to one or two to one density.) Some of this land lies over the aquifer and she asked what can be done about the density in these amendments which is one to three acres for people who have vested lots of one to one? Chairman Huntingford explained his understanding of the ordinance amendments which is if a subdivision is being proposed with densities down to one per three acres, then the current septic system requirements would apply. If the subdivision is for densities that are higher than that and the zoning allows it, then there will be additional septic system requirements. Wendy Wrinkle, 172 Hubbard Creek Road, Port Ludlow, representative of the Shine Community Action Council, stated that her testimony tonight is regarding salt water intrusion for the purpose of dispelling rumors that have been based in fear and denial, rather than in expert opinion and case study. She reported that a Planning Commission member, after reviewing the ordinance, challenged that the low thresholds for nitrates and cWorides are aesthetic rather than based on any realistic concern. The EP A, the State Health Department and the Environmental Health Department recommend these low threshold levels to allow for prevention opportunities and mitigation. The reference documents turned in throughout this process recommend (BPA) cWo ride levels of30 to 38 milligrams, equivalent of 20 milligrams of sodium. Another Planning Commission member also opposes the 25 milliliter cWoride threshold. He lives on Marrowstone Island which has much higher levels of cWo ride. This is no reason to allow pervasive, irreversible damage to other areas throughout the County. Pope Resources groundwater study specialists, Robinson and Noble, in their recent Port Ludlow groundwater report, writing about a specific well in the Shine area, say that "the cWorides range from 24 to 35 milligrams per liter, standard for cutoff is 250 for drinking. The cWo ride levels are relatively high although it's the low range of the threshold. The cWo ride levels are relatively high suggesting salt water influence." AI Boucher raises the issue of balance in the ordinance regarding property rights. The original ordinance that was appealed didn't balance anything. It did not address aquifer recharge at all. This ordinance has been heavily adapted from the original County consultants ordinance to make it less regulatory and more flexible through the use of Best Management Practices and best available technology. The revised ordinance is preventa- tive revolving around monitoring, education and the availability of options. The options in salt water intrusion areas can be as simple as raising the pumping level above sea level to not pull more water in, or reducing the amount of pumping. What's the cost of one or two people on the Health Department staff compared to bringing in alternative sources, to treating ones that have high thresholds that we didn't pay attention to? She then listed areas in the County and the cWoride levels in wells in that area. High . VOL 21 rAG~ 423 ..::;::{1:i::i:i¡::.I~llillll Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 17, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . chloride levels are not isolated situations. Adjacent to these private waterfront properties are forest lands planned for redesignation to development. Are the developers going to be responsible to not intrude further in these areas? She concluded by stating that her hope is that the County can get past the property rights issues, fear and denial and get on with starting to take one step toward something that can be preventative, can offer options, and can give us a way to accommodate, protect, mitigate, evaluate and get on with life. Ryan Tillman, 580 Irondale Road, reviewed the map of the aquifer recharge areas which were created from a DNR geological assessment of the underlying geologic fonnations. The map shows a "peanut" soil type which is a lake bottom fonnation in areas where two long plats are being proposed near the City's Sparling well. From their research it looks like the area was not mapped correctly and doesn't show the glacial moraine in the area of these long plat which is what their research indicates. He stated that he feels that the maps are not accurate enough for the County to use to chose who is in or out of an aquifer recharge area (3 acre density). How the soils relate to the aquifer underneath is only understood in very limited tenns. In response to a question from Chainnan Huntingford, Ryan Tillman said that he doesn't feel tllere are many symptoms indicating a problem. There is not a good testing program to provide the infonnation needed. If the State wants us to protect an area, then they have a responsibility to help the County fund the studies to provide the necessary infonnation. Dave Clevenger, Chima cum, Vice President of the Homebuilders Association, said that members of the Homebuilders Association have participated on committees doing this work. His biggest concern is that the regulations are being drafted without good baseline studies. We don't have good data here in Jefferson County. We're assuming that we have problems that may not exist. He feels that 25 is too Iowa threshold, and 50 would be a better target threshold. He doesn't understand, with reference to Wendy Wrinkle's comments, how more regulation can be less regulatory. He urged that the consequences of what is being done be reviewed and that a balance be reached. Rita Keptner, Marrowstone Island, stated that she has been following groundwater issues since 1979 when she purchased her property. She has tried in this process to acquire good educational materials and disseminate them through the community. She reviewed the processes she has been involved with over the years. She stated that she feels there is a lot of good infonnation and documentation available. East Jefferson County is more studied than any area in Washington State and there is more solid data about it than anywhere else in the State. It is clear to her that some people have not read the research documents or the current draft of the ordinance being discussed, because they don't seem to be aware that the ordinance includes an attempt to gather more infonnation. Just having new well logs reported to the County and put into a data bank is a solid way of gathering new infonnation. This ordinance is a butchered compromise, but its not set in concrete and it is a start. Its a place where we can begin as a community to see what works for us. By law the ordinance has to be reviewed on a four year basis. She urged the Board to get on with it and pass the ordinance. If we live with it for a year and don't like it then it can be modified. This is important. _ VOL 21 rAC~ 424 ..:::6::::II::i:1:i ..:{;@~¡¡1¡¡¡1f¡:¡:~i:~if1j Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 17 , 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ron GregoI)', a Builder fÌ"om Port Ludlow, stated that there is a movement on the national and State level to evaluate and limit the regulations. This evening more regulations are being discussed. He doesn't feel that the answer to the problem is in more regulation. We need to consider what we're trying to do. This regulation talks about a Director having the authority to make certain detenninations. Vesting authority in the regulatory environment in one person is scary. This administrative issue needs to be addressed. Ordinances like this create work for consultants and lawyers. He asked that ways to resolve problems without ordinances be found. Good infonnation is needed before we jump into the fIre. Arthur price said that he feels the County should be considering starting the process to get water rights on surface waters in the area to provide an in house only or a limited water supply that is fully purified for the citizens. Dave Clevenger reiterated that the issue is that we have flawed maps and data and the maps will be given to the general public to tell them if they are in a Critical Aquifer Recharge area. How accurate are our maps? He disagrees with this ordinance because it is not based on current data. Chairman Huntingford stated that these maps were put together with the best data that is available to the County. Miriam Smith, Port Hadlock, asked if the use of chemical fertilizers on lawns and gardens which adds to nitrate levels has been taken into consideration in the establishment of densities? Larry Fay answered that fertilizers are a significant contributor of nitrogen in the aquifer. That is not considered in the density provisions, but there is a section in the ordinance that deals with fertilizer application and recommendations. She then asked if commercial developments are regulated by this ordinance? Larry Fay answered that the County Health Department regulates domestic strength wastes through the on-site sewage regulations. If a commercial development is generating sewage with household character- istics (an office with rest rooms) the discharge is pennitted under the County's authority. If a commercial development discharges industrial wastes, that is pennitted by the State Department of Ecology. JQhn Keys, Marrowstone Island, read a letter the Department of Ecology sent to the Board dated April 7, 1995. (See Microfilm Record) Chainnan Huntingford advised that the Board received copies of that letter in their agenda packet this week. Larry Fay concluded by noting that the standards in the ordinance are not necessarily health based standards. The purpose of the ordinance is to preserve the water quality that exists. If that water quality is better than the drinking water standard, the goal is to preserve that level of water quality. Chairman Huntingford thanked everyone for coming and advised that the hearing is being continued to tomorrow night, 7:00 pm, at the Quilcene Community Center. Written comments will be accepted at the Commissioners Office until 5:00 pm on Monday, April 24, 1995. . VOL 21r~()~425 ..:~:~t¡¡¡¡¡~¡¡iii ,':':':':':':':':':':':': ....:"1,...... ..::::~t~¡¡¡~¡¡¡¡¡¡¡j~¡~¡;t;¡¡¡jjj¡~ Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 17, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The meeting was recessed at the conclusion of the public hearing and reconvened on Wednesday evening at the Quilcene Community Center for the following hearing. All three Board members were present. HEARING re: Proposed Amendments to the Critical Areas Ordinance Sections on Critical Aquifer Recharge Areas: Chairman Huntingford opened the public hearing on the amendments to the Critical Areas Ordinance sections (Sections 3, 7, 11 and 13) on critical aquifer recharge areas and explained that the Prosecuting Attorney has reviewed the public notice and detennined that it was proper. Public Services Director Gary Rowe reported on the background for the drafting of these amendments and then Environmental Health Director Larry Fay reviewed the actual amendments. Mari Phillips made the following comments: .¡ Under Purpose #4: Since when does Jefferson County assume the State Department of Ecology's responsibilities and to what degree and at what cost? The 25 milligrams (of sodium) is of concern. Sodium levels in soda pop are considerably higher than that, so is the sodium content in bottled water. .¡ Under the Special Aquifer Recharge Protection Areas, Item #6, Groundwater Management Areas: How true are the maps? Are they accurate or are they to be used as guidelines? Chairman Huntingford stated the maps are the best infonnation the County has at this time. .¡ Well Head Protection Areas #D: This needs to be a lot more specific. .¡ Section 7: Will there be another hearing after staff reviews the comments from these hearings and changes are made to the Ordinance? We don't want a stamp of approval on a final document when it isn't clear what it will be. .¡ Section 7.302: This section says "the most stringent requirements or standards of all applicable areas shall be enforced." Where is the urgency in this? In the next paragraph (line 44 through 47) - what are the costs that might be associated with thi? s. .¡ Item L, Other Activities: What will be allowed in these areas? .¡ Section 7.404: Administrator is mentioned in this section and throughout this whole ordinance. Mari Phillips stated that she didn't vote for an administrator, she voted for County Commissioners. She would like the Board to be more responsible for these things and not delegate so many responsibilities to staff. .¡ Section 7.50 Protection Standards: Do we have a problem with nitrates in Jefferson County that has been documented? Is there a true need? .¡ Section 7.502: These are very expensive treatment methods. Do we understand fully how nitrogen works in the soil? Will these proposals, which are still vague, even work? .¡ Modeling: What margins and tolerances are allowable in this modeling? Is there any other County in Washington that is using this particular model and with what results? .¡ Section 7.508, 509 and 510: Let's see the rules before we adopt this. She is very concerned about approving something that the public has not had a chance to comment on. : VOL 21 L~C'425 ..::::~:t::::¡¡IIIIIIII: ...................... ....................... ....................... ..:.:.;.;.;.:.;.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 17, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .¡ Section 7.508: Who and where is the Jefferson COlmty Development Review Division? Gary Rowe answered that it is part of the Pennit Center. .¡ Section 11.502: This section discusses "the area surrounding." Does this mean that something happening on a piece of property will be an impact on surrounding properties? The wording in this document is difficult. .¡ Section 11.503, Item #8: Why is Jefferson County requiring significantly more stringent regulations than even the DOE? What is it going to cost and who gets to pay? In general, Mari Phillips concluded, the language in the ordinance is difficult to read and hard to follow. She asked how these regulations deal with background chloride? It is her feeling that this ordinance will add between $3,000 to $5,000 in cost per septic system in an aquifer recharge area. She asked that the public be allowed to see the rules that are developed per this ordinance before the ordinance is adopted. She asked why the County is rushing into another round of unspecified regulations to protect us from problems we didn't even know we had. Why are we spending our money on consultants to come up with imaginary models that don't tell us anything real about the water and generally scaring us all with another layer of rules for rules sake. Why don't we start by finding out what's going on with our groundwater and what really does threaten its quality, what we can do to mitigate those threats, and then draft an ordinance that is fair, balanced and effective. An added bonus might even be cost effectiveness. With the passage of Initiative 164 significantly more care must be taken to avoid a taking. Robert Prill stated that it would be wise to know the direction of flow of an aquifer before making regulations about what can and can't be taken out of it. He would like the County to be on the safe side and also the inexpensive side. Larry Fay answered that flow is a significant piece of the modeling and the maps will be continually revised, refmed and improved as information is gathered on specific areas to determine if the boundaries identified are appropriate, whether the areas are correctly mapped and whether there are areas that were missed the first time around. Chairman Huntingford added that the County is trying to find a way that is not too expensive to provide some protection. JQhn Swallow. Port Hadlock. asked what will happen to existing lots of record that is in an aquifer recharge area and is not a half acre in size or in the appropriate soils for on-site septic? Larry Fay stated that the minimum area requirement in a Critical Aquifer Recharge Area is a half acre. The lot wouldn't get a permit or the property owner would have to apply for a waiver under the provisions of "reasonable economic use" variance. John Swallow asked if this would be a taking since these are lots of record? Larry Fay ex- plained that the County is trying to get an idea of how many lots of this type would be affected and what the ownership distribution on them is. The discussion continued regarding "takings" and how this ordinance would impact lots of record. Dick Swenson. Gardiner, asked how the County is going to work with adjoining Counties on developments that are right on the county line? There is a development proposed in Clallam County which is less than 1/2 mile rrom the Gardiner water system well head. ~ VOL 21 r~t~427 ~ Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 17, 1995 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chainnan Huntingford explained that as he understands the laws, the PUD is required to do a well head protection area for that well and the County will be looking into this further. John Swallow asked when the well head protection area will be defmed and what impact those areas will have on adjacent properties? Collette Kostelec, consultant for the City of Port Townsend, reported that group A water purveyors are required by the State Health Department to delineate their well head areas, based on a simple calculated fixed radius, by this summer. Purveyors with more than 1,000 connections need to do a more sophisti- cated analysis to delineate well head protection areas by the fall of 1996. Until that more detailed analysis is done, the Critical Aquifer Recharge Area Ordinance will only consider the one year time of travel using the simple calculated fixed radius, or circular method, which means that initially the well head protection area won't be that great. The discussion continued regarding well head protection areas. Carol Swallow said that she feels there is a lot left out of this ordinance. The County is trying to get public input on something that's not complete. She questioned whether the map is accurate enough to tell a property owner what the repercussions will be for their parcel. The discussion then turned to the "reasonable economic use" variance (Chapter 12 of the Critical Areas Ordinance), the nine criteria that must be met to be eligible for that variance, and the Hearing Examiner's procedures. Carol Swallow then asked what rules are in effect between the time this ordinance is adopted and the time when the Best Management Practice rules are drafted and adopted? Gary Rowe answered the current rules are in effect until the Best Management Practices are adopted. Larry Fay added that the Best Management Practice rules will be handled by the County Health Board. Laurie Anderson, Chima cum, stated that individual land owners are concerned. The restrictions and regulations in the ordinance are overwhelming. Across the board this ordinance is unreasonable in applying these requirements to a five acre or three acre parcel. It implies that such a parcel will damage or destroy the aquifer or recharge areas of our County. She concluded by saying that she feels the intention is good, and she appreciates the efforts the Board is making to listen to citizens concerns. Mari Phillips asked where the 25 milligrams figure for chloride came trom with regard to salt water intrusion? Larry Fay answered that 25 milligrams per liter is the threshold the State Department of Ecology established to identify an area as a low risk sea water intrusion area. This figure would be an early indication that the aquifer is being stressed and lets the Health Department know that monitoring of that well should be done to determine if the problem is extensive and that some kind of management on the withdrawal trom that aquifer to keep it trom getting worse. Anti-degradation says that the goal is to preserve the groundwater quality. The discussion continued regarding salt water intrusion and what would be done if a monitoring indicated that the 25 milligrams per liter had been . VOL 21 r~G~ 428 .'::::::;:;:; ..::::~t¡¡¡¡¡¡¡ff ..:::::t:~~:::::I:j~::::::: .'::::::::::::::::::::::;:;:;:;:::;:::::::::;:;:; ,. Commissioners' Meeting Minutes: Week of April 17, 1995 . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . reached, whether the maps are accurate, and how these maps can be applied if the County isn't sure that they are accurate. Lorna Ward, Quilcene, asked what Board will be reviewing these comments? Chairman Huntingford answered the Board of Commissioners will review the comments with assistance the Planning Department staff. The wording in this ordinance should have been done so that a lay person can understand it. She doesn't like the use of an Administrator in this ordinance. Who defmes what is a significant adverse groundwater quality impact? Larry Fay reported that he presumes that the State Department of Ecology anti-degradation policy fonnula would be used for this detennination. Gary Rowe reported that the Director of the Development Review Section of the Permit Center is the Administrator referred to in this section of the ordinance. Chainnan Huntingford explained that an administrator is used because the Board cannot review every application that is received. The Board puts their trust in that person to do the job. There is an appeal process for decisions made by the Administrator. The Board is responsible if the Administrator makes mistakes. Dave Phinizy asked if there is a way to change the map if it is found to be in error? Gary Rowe answered that this is covered under Section 7.501 of the ordinance. Commissioner Hinton asked if well logs are checked and assessed? Larry Fay reported that the Health Department does review well logs. Larry Fay explained that if there is adequate Ïnfonnation provided that proves something about the aquifer, then the map could be amended. A well log from a single parcel would not provide enough infonnation about an aquifer to make a change. The on-site sewage regulations require a detennination of the type of system required be made based on the type of soils the system will be built in. Gary Rowe explained that the map made for the critical aquifer recharge areas were developed with Ïnfonnation from the u.S. Geological Survey maps. Gary Rowe explained the process for changing the maps if additional Ïnfonnation is given that proves that an area should be included on the map (Section 7.302.) JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ~ LornaDelan~y, CMC Clerk of the Board VOL 21 r~G~ 429 .........æ...8......... ..... ... .... ............. .... ........ .......... .... ......... . . .... ............ .... ..::::~~jjItrt~:~itttr